I was being a bit cheeky, but I’m not really arguing that individual inventions can be determined as good or bad. My point is it comes from the same underlying mode of production. "Claude is useful" and "the way we have organised society that led to its creation may be ecologically catastrophic” can both be true.
Writing a custom solver seems kind of absurd to me. There are 10s(/100s?) of open source ones out there. HiGHS in particular seems to be challenging the paid solvers with its LP improvements of late.
But now I want to write my own.
I disagree with the analysis, although I liked the opening paragraph. Why separate the economics of interest rates from the economics of AI productivity?
Always good to challenge the narrative - but I don't pay for RDS Postgres because of the WAL, replication, all the beauty of pg etc. I pay RDS because it's largely set and forget. I am gladly paying AWS to think about it for me. I think at a certain scale, this is a really good tradeoff. At the very beginning it could be overkill, and at the top end obviously its unsuitable - but for most of us those tradeoffs are why it's successful.
more throughput WITHOUT huge tail latency is my understanding. A user above posted this link https://lwn.net/Articles/994322/ which goes into the background. My mental model is "give the kernel more explicit information" and it will be able to make better decisions
I agree. I'm imagining a large software team with hundreds of tickets "ready to be worked on" might support this workflow - but even then, surely you're going to start running into unnecessary conflicts.
The max Claude instances I've run is 2 because beyond that, I'm - as you say - unable to actually determine the next best course during the processing time. I could spend the entire day planning / designing prompts - and perhaps that will be the most efficient software development practise in the future. And/or perhaps there it is a sign I'm doing insufficient design up front.
The privatisation of the commons will endure as our generations' greatest folly.
I look at the Australian NBN as a great example of a project that is not economical for a private business to entertain - it requires "The Government" to build. How do we reason with this in the capitalist system?
Respectfully, I don't think that piece adds anything of material substance. It's a list of hollow platitudes (vapid writing listing inactionable truisms).
I reflect on university, and one of the most interesting projects I did was an 'essay on the history of <operating system of your choice>' as part of an OS course. I chose OS X (Snow Leopard) and digging into the history gave me fantastic insights into software development, Unix, and software commercialisation. Echo your Mr Kay's sentiments entirely.